Lol, I was using W 3.1 on PC. And installed it 3 times... [spoiler]But my 1st OS was "Basic v3.5" and 2nd was "Basic v2.0". And I used plotbasic, supergraphics, Simon's assembler, ...[/spoiler]

MSX dos (by Microsoft) 🙂

Yup, we're still using essentially the same NT kernel today, with Vista came NT 6.0, Win7 6.1, Win8, 6.2, Win8.1 6.3 and Win10 6.4, although Microsoft have arbitrarily changed the NT version number for Win10 to..... NT 10.0 With Vista, the whole OS eco-system changed, the major overhaul of the NT kernel, the driver platform, the rendering engine for the GUI etc Of course, over time over the various subsequent releases of Windows, things have been improved but the fact is, everything has been built on top of Windows Vista. And many would agree, Windows 7, was Windows Vista done right.

7 was basically Vista with the *fetch tech and the indexer in less aggressive mode. The latest versions of Vista were almost impossible to tell performance-wise vs 7.

And worst one ever at same time. It was step forward in terms of software technologies. But edition wise Vista was crappiest release of OS. Every edition had very different control panel, lower editions had crucial features missing. Lowest edition (can't remember name) did not even have access to NTFS permission settings. I had to hack in libraries from higher edition to fix cousin's HDD after she reinstalled OS.

That was stupid product segmentation that more or less continued with 7, and started being more reasonable with 8 again. I don't remember control panel differences, unless you mean having less options there for the lower tier editions.

Before Vista and after Vista I could navigate almost anyone via phone to solution, but navigating people to anything in Vista...

I always had the opposite experience. Typing in the start menu was always faster for helping, than telling them where to go.

And then there was performance. Some things were better than XP, some were worse. But second beta of Win 7 came... I 1st tested 32bit version and it was miles better on system with 4GB of ram. Then friend with exactly same HW tested 64bit version and we found that it is even better.

My first Vista installation was a 64-bit one on a Q6600 with 8GB of RAM. There was no comparison to how much worse XP were for that. A lot of people forget that Vista was when the 64-bit versions of Windows started to be treated as equals, drivers wise, as all Vista-compatible drivers had to be 64-bit.

Windows 7 left Vista in dust in every aspect. And I never saw single reason to stay on Vista instead of moving to W7.

W7 were literally Vista SP2 with some superfetch and indexer tweaks and a dock. With Vista MS tried to expand in all fronts, that was the main problem in my opinion. New kernel, new driver paradigm, new security paradigm, new GUI paradigm, new filesystem interactions, semantic desktop, 64-bit integration, new multimedia support, that was way too much for one release to do properly. Add a ton of new Windows tools on that, like Windows Mail, Calendar, new control panel options etc. All things considered, it wasn't bad, and it was the only option if you had anything with more than 2GB of RAM which was starting to be too few back then. But as usual the memes will survive the actual experience for much longer.

As I said we all just put our our old ages out there...and yes I am there with someone for 3.1 and even dos...more then 20 years haha. We have all been through a lot over the years both PC and real life and we all deserve a pat on the back.

Unless you had a CPU with HT, why exactly didn't you just stick with XP and then upgrade to 7 when that came out? There were easily accessible patches to run DX10 games in XP. I'm not aware of anything else at the time that was better about Vista that couldn't be accounted for.

Everyone was excited for a new OS after 6 years of XP. And there were no HT chips around at that time. C2D had just come out a few months earlier and got one early on, and it was more capable of running Vista than anything else at the time (other than Q6600 which was released late 2016). It was driver support for Vista early on that was the big headache.

Everyone was excited for a new OS after 6 years of XP. And there were no HT chips around at that time. C2D had just come out a few months earlier and got one early on, and it was more capable of running Vista than anything else at the time (other than Q6600 which was released late 2016). It was driver support for Vista early on that was the big headache.

You mean 2006-2007 for the Q6600. I used one of them HP OEM Vista based PCs. It had C2D E8400 and 8Gb of PC2 6400 RAM and man that Machine ran Vista SP2 Very Well.

Everyone was excited for a new OS after 6 years of XP. And there were no HT chips around at that time. C2D had just come out a few months earlier and got one early on, and it was more capable of running Vista than anything else at the time (other than Q6600 which was released late 2016). It was driver support for Vista early on that was the big headache.

Pentium 4 had HT, but, not everyone jumped on Vista immediately. I remember some Vista PCs with i3s and i7s, though not many.

Pentium 4 had HT, but, not everyone jumped on Vista immediately. I remember some Vista PCs with i3s and i7s, though not many.

I know but didnt mention it since P4 was single core 2 threads. Had one before C2D (Northwood 2.8ghz). There may have been i3s and i7s but also Vista PCs running well past the arrival of Win 7.

I have a Sony VAIO that still runs Vista, it runs just fine... it has a core 2 duo, when it was purchased Windows 7 was just released and it was never upgraded haha

As for Vista being "actually good", no, it wasn't

Talk about yourself. I used vista since it came out until some time in 2014. For me it was a damn great os.

I use windows since W98. After the W98Me fail, I had hope Microsoft had learn something. Windows XP was really good for me, so good I just used Vista because it came with my laptop. I replaced it with W7 on all machines (as everyone else). Goodbye WVista, you won't be missed.

Does ending Vista support mean that existing Microsoft updates for Vista are no longer available or just the cessation of addition updates?

Does ending Vista support mean that existing Microsoft updates for Vista are no longer available or just the cessation of addition updates?

It means no more updates, previously released updates should still be available.

Talk about yourself. I used vista since it came out until some time in 2014. For me it was a damn great os.

I also said it was an important, adequate, and usable OS (after it was patched). But yeah, let's just focus on the 1 negative and dismiss it with a personal anecdote. I have no doubt that you have used Vista without it being a problem, but just because something suits your needs, that never implies it is good. I suppose it would be fair to say that what is good depends on how you're looking at it. In terms of usability, Vista was very good. Vista is still comfortably usable by today's standards, assuming your hardware is compatible. In terms of it's capabilities vs other OSes, it was sub-par. Vista was bloated, it's security was very flawed, it wasn't very efficient or snappy, and there were many things that had room for improvement. Look at in this perspective: Using Vista is like driving a Lada - when you look closely, it's not bad by any means; there's no shame in driving one. It will get the job done without leaving you stranded. But, it isn't particularly good at doing anything. There are other vehicles (used or otherwise, older or newer) that could offer more for the same price.